It is not clear where in human evolution we specifically qualify as in the image of God in the sense of Genesis 1, nor whether that is abrupt or more gradual. Even young-earthers are all over the map when it comes to calling a particular hominid a human versus just an ape.
We also don’t know exactly what physical and social traits would have distinguished Neanderthals or especially Denisovians from modern humans. We have enough Neanderthal skeletons to know the general build but not details like hair pattern. They probably had some speech capacity but would have sounded different.
Judging by modern humans, a very likely scenario for interbreeding would be for a young adult male modern human to go out in search of new opportunities (especially if he had limited opportunities back home) and then reach the conclusion that, if he wanted to get a date, he’d have to go with someone who didn’t look quite like the folks back home. Conversely, a local female might be impressed by the potential of someone with new ideas, even though he looked kind of funny.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
22
She might be more impressed by his colossal strength.
We know what Neanderthals looked like. They were stocky, muscular people with some unique features: heavy brow ridges, no chin, big noses, occipital bun, etc. We know that some of them had red hair. They made sophisticated tools, probably had ornaments, and ate a variety of foods. They probably had speech. But nothing is known about what Denisovans looked like–so far few fossil remains have been found!
I assume that you are saying that we (you) “know” something more, by your faith alone?
Or are you simply saying that subsequent to the limitations of science, we don’t yet know if there were other universes?
I’ll stick with the merger of science and faith…One God, one creation of our universe, all factors in place, by Him, then evolution as we understand it today.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
28
No, no, no, no. It’s nothing to do with faith. It’s to do with rationality. To which faith must conform. And science.
Faith is not blind. Many have falsely twisted the meaning for their personal agenda’s sake. Faith is not even a religious concept but an empirical one based on faithfulness. example:
I have faith [an expectation] my key will unlock the front door as it has so many times before. It is the door key’s faithfulness that gives me “faith” in it. I would be more surprised if it didn’t work. Faith and faithfulness are two sides of the same coin having the same root word. Faith without faithfulness is only hope, not faith.
To be clear, my front door did not unlock because of my great faith. grin
The Bible uses the secular word in relation to God’s faithfulness.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
32
You had framed faith in contrast to science as if it was not empirical or rational. I only offered the original meaning to establish a common ground for discussion and everyone on the same page. In truth, much of everything we do everyday is done out of expectation [faith].
I’m with ya on the first part but disagree with the second. wink
The red hair is actually not as well-supported as once thought. We know the build - what can be seen from skeletons, but hair pattern makes a big difference and is not certain.
I’d advise you listen to the uniquely unique series of podcast on this topic from biologos.
I can’t remember which episode they talk about this but they tackle this kind of question. Ultimately we don’t know what is being human is according to the bible other than we are created in the image of god, it definitely does not specify homo sapiens, it does even really make sens that we have the same form and you wouldn’t expect bible to specify such a recent concept. It worth remembering that the bible says rabbit chew the cud, they don’t they chew their feces’ similar but not the same by our modern standards.
Ultimately the podcast show perspective of humanity being subsets but a subset of homo sapiens species, humanity being subset of the homo genus and to an extents suggesting that it would stretch to completely different life forms.
Given the plural claim “in our image” of a single God religion suggests lower entities such as angels also being “like God” without the corporal reference as they can reportedly take on different forms. Any corporal arguments of being similar to God’s image seem unlikely and moot in this perspective.
I’ve considered the similarity perhaps being our mental capabilities but am discovering that is more reflective of angels given the examples of satan misconceiving rather than an already-knowing God who does not need to reason. Maybe saying “in our image” is more accurate than “in God’s image” as our mental similarity is more like the angels than God.
A podcast being heavily corporal focus seems improper and unfruitful IMHO.